Connect with us

News

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense

The battle between NASA and Blue Origin over SpaceX's HLS Starship Moon lander continues. (SpaceX/Blue Origin)

Published

4 years ago

on

For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.

After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.

While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.

For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.

As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.

Advertisement

The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.

All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.

Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).

Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s new $29B Tesla stock award gets strange synopsis from governance firm

Did CGI not realize that Tesla Shareholders supported Musk being paid not once, but twice?

Published

3 hours ago

on

August 12, 2025

By

elon musk speaking
Credit: TED

Elon Musk was recently awarded around $29 billion in Tesla stock as the company’s Board of Directors is attempting to get its CEO paid after his original pay package was denied twice by the Delaware Chancery Court.

But a new and strange synopsis from the Corporate Governance Institute (CGI) says the award is potentially a strength move to “endorse the will of a powerful CEO.” The problem is, in the same sentence, the firm said the new award brings up a “question of whether the board exists to steward a company in the interests of all stakeholders.”

The problem with their new analysis of Musk’s pay package is that shareholders voted twice on Musk’s original pay package of $56 billion. They voted to give Musk that sum on two separate occasions.

Musk’s original $56 billion pay package was approved by shareholders twice; once in 2018 and once again last year. Last year’s vote was in response to Delaware Chancery Court Kathaleen McCormick’s decision to revoke the “unfathomable sum” from Musk.

Shareholders still showed support for Musk getting paid. Tesla said in its new award to the CEO that this is a way to give him compensation for the first time in seven years.

CGI said in its note (via TipRanks):

“When a board builds its strategy around a single individual, it creates a concentration risk, not just operationally, but culturally and ethically. If that individual becomes a source of volatility, the company becomes fragile by design.”

What’s strange with this type of narrative is the fact that Tesla’s valuation has skyrocketed with Musk at the helm. Go back to 2020, and the stock is up over 200 percent. Since Musk’s $56 billion pay package was introduced in 2018, shares are up well over 1,000 percent.

Tesla engineer explains why Elon Musk deserves new pay package

Musk’s 2018 pay package was also not awarded to him without performance-based incentives. He was required to reach certain growth goals, all of which were accomplished through the launch of new vehicles and the advancements of its driver-assistance suites, like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

It is tough to agree with CGI’s perception of Musk’s new pay plan, especially as it is much less than what shareholders voted on twice. Musk deserves to be paid for his contributions to Tesla.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Robotaxi is headed to New York City, but one thing is in its way

Tesla is working to hire Vehicle Operators in New York City, but the company still needs some regulatory hurdles to go through.

Published

5 hours ago

on

August 12, 2025

By

tesla store in New York City
Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi will be headed to New York City, but there is one huge thing that stands in its way: approval to test autonomous vehicles.

Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform across the United States as it currently operates in Austin, Texas, and the Bay Area of California.

The company has also been seeking approvals in several other states, including Nevada, Arizona, and Florida.

However, the company is also working to expand to major metropolitan areas across the U.S. that it has not explicitly mentioned, as it attempts to reach CEO Elon Musk’s goal of giving half of the country’s population access to the platform by the end of the year:

It appears New York City is next on the list, according to a job posting on Tesla’s Careers website.

The company says it is hiring a Vehicle Operator for Autopilot in Flushing, New York, a section of the borough of Queens. Queens is connected to Brooklyn and Long Island, so it seems more ideal than launching in Manhattan or the Bronx, where traffic is heavy and charging is not as readily available.

Tesla’s job posting states:

“We are looking for a highly motivated self-starter to join our vehicle data collection team. As a Prototype Vehicle Operator, you will be responsible for driving an engineering vehicle for extended periods, conducting dynamic audio and camera data collection for testing and training purposes. Access to the data collected is limited to the applicable development team. This role requires a high level of flexibility, strong attention to detail, excellent driving skills, and the ability to thrive in a fast-paced, dynamic environment.”

It also lists the hours of operation as Tuesday through Saturday or Sunday through Thursday, with its three shifts listed as:

  • Day Shift: 6:00 AM – 2:30 PM or 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM
  • Afternoon Shift: 2:00 PM – 10:30 PM or 4:00 PM – 12:30 AM
  • Night Shift: 10:00 PM-6:30 AM or 12:00 AM-8:30 AM

We wouldn’t count on New York City being the next place Tesla launches Robotaxi. According to a report from CNBC, a spokesperson for the NYC Department of Transportation confirmed Tesla has not yet applied for permits that are needed to operate its ride-hailing service.

For what it’s worth, it could just be the first step in Tesla’s plans. It also has Vehicle Operator job postings in other regions. Houston, Texas, as well as Tampa, Miami, and Clermont, Florida, are all listed on Tesla’s Career postings.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla’s Elon Musk gives nod to Ford while acknowledging his influence on EVs

“Ford basically invented mass manufacturing of large, complex products. Everyone else copied.”

Published

5 hours ago

on

August 12, 2025

By

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford
Credit: Tesla, Ford

Tesla CEO Elon Musk gave a tremendous nod to Ford while also acknowledging his own influence on EVs and the automotive industry in general.

Yesterday, Ford announced its new manufacturing process for EVs, which was essentially a rebirth of its own production lines and plans for more affordable models to offer consumers.

It was important to recognize that Ford truly launched automotive manufacturing with its production of the Model T 122 years ago.

That’s exactly what Musk did in a response to Ford CEO Jim Farley:

In the over 100 years since Ford started producing vehicles, the company has had one significant fact go under the radar: it truly created a great process for building large, complex vehicles. It is something that many companies eventually adopted as the car industry took off.

Tesla is in a similar situation. It has used things like the Giga Press from the Italian company IDRA to create a better, more efficient, streamlined process for building cars.

It was able to use casting to eliminate a vast majority of parts from the Model Y, which not only helped increase manufacturing efficiency but also improved safety and structural rigidity. It truly revolutionized manufacturing for the company, and Ford said that it would adopt a similar mindset with its new EVs.

Yesterday, Doug Field, the Chief EV, Digital and Design Officer for Ford, and a former Sr. VP of Engineering for Tesla, said the company was taking the mentality that “the best part is no part.”

Musk acknowledged how far it has come and how it is influencing other car companies to do the same in terms of its production strategy:

Ford is using an “Assembly Tree,” which is essentially very similar to Tesla’s “unboxed production process.” In addition to the use of Gigacasting, which Ford is calling “Unicasting,” as well as the use of structural batteries, it is almost as if Tesla is having its own “Model T moment.”

Ford has been quick to adopt an EV mentality as it plans to transition its business over the next decades. It is working to prepare for the future of the atuomotive industry, and although it has adjusted its strategy, it can’t be denied that Ford is one of the legacy automakers taking this new chapter in cars seriously.

Continue Reading

Trending